Nearly 400 people were convicted of driving while intoxicated in the District since fall 2008 based on inaccurate results from breath test machines, and half of them went to jail, city officials said Wednesday.

D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles said the machines were improperly adjusted by city police. The jailed defendants generally served at least five days, he said. [...]

The District’s badly calibrated equipment would show a driver’s blood-alcohol content to be about 20 percent higher than it actually was, Nickles said. All 10 of the breath test machines used by District police were wrong, he said.

Amazingly, this wasn’t a situation where the machines were calibrated incorrectly overnight, the error stretched across months before being discovered and fixed:

The machines have been under investigation by Nickles’s office since February, when an outside consultant working for the city suspected an accuracy problem. [...]

The flawed cases emerged after a review of 1,100 prosecutions between September 2008 and February 2010 that relied heavily on breath test results, according to a June 4 letter that Nickles sent to the local trial lawyers association and the public defender’s service.

Despite the major error in calibration, the Attorney General seems convinced that most of the convictions will stand:

Some lawyers who specialize in drunken-driving cases questioned Nickles’s continued confidence in the DWI convictions, with one lawyer, Thomas A. Key, calling it “utter bull.”

“The way the law is written in the District, you cannot bring a DWI without a .08 result,” Key said. “It demands that result to make that arrest. I’d take a case without a score any day and beat that. But once they have that test number in there, it’s a whole new ballgame for a client.”

The breath test alone is enough for a charge of DWI, Burke and Nickles said, and field sobriety tests are not needed to bolster the case.

What makes this situation even more frustrating is the fact that even when correctly calibrated, breathalyzers can demonstrate margins of error of nearly 50% and their initial use in DUI/DWI cases was wrongly justified by a simple decimal point error.

You can read the full Washington Post story here.

• California Supreme Court: Breathalyzer Results Can Be Challenged
• Breath-Alcohol Analysis: How Reliable Is It?
• Florida Governor Crist, Are You Paying Attention?
• Motorists Forced To Let Officers Draw Blood Samples At DUI Stops
• It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers

Ignition interlocks are designed to prevent people who have been convicted of DUI/DWI from starting their vehicle if they have alcohol on their breath. Despite studies that show that doing so will increase accidents, legislators are increasingly supporting MADD-backed laws that place ignition interlocks in the vehicles of first-time offenders.

Here are just a few of the stories shared in the NMA Forums that show how flaws in current ignition interlock technology are making the lives of people (who have already been punished for their crime) miserable:

I went to start my car, gave a sample and it failed with a BAC of .06, according to the employee. This time I was there so no one could dispute that I drank NO ALCOHOL and didn’t do ANYTHING wrong. They checked it again. I put a brand new mouthpiece on and blew. It passed. I made them watch me do it.

The very first sample after the data download is a fail because of something that they did. They said that they would make a note of this and that it should be okay with MVA, but I have spoken to them before and they said a fail is a fail, it was not my fault. I called them when I got home to make sure I had the names of each employee correct for my records and asked how on earth could this happen. They said that some of the calibration fluid could have caused this. He wasn’t sure.

Great, now I have to be afraid to get the data downloaded! I am so sick of this device. It makes me think I am going to have a heart attack. During the holidays, the service light drained my battery. I called them and they said that I had to hot shot it to get it started. It started. On the highway, during rush hour, it requested a rolling retest and kept aborting for no reason. The horn went off and my lights started flashing. It continued to request a sample. For 3 miles it did this until finally the sample took and passed. My heart was palpitating.

I drove directly to the shop and just as I arrived, it did it again. They replaced the sample head. This is the 3rd time I have had these “state of the art, undeniably accurate” IIDs replaced. This is not right! This is torture. I haven’t drank, I can’t use my regular hair products. I am petrified to get gas. I wouldn’t wish one of these on my worst enemy.

This last Saturday I had made a batch of potato salad and put some in a bowl to take to a friend, and I ate what was left on the spoon, and my IID locked out on me. I was so mad that I actually tried to remove the damn thing so I could get going down the road. I have had trouble when I eat biscuits and gravy, pot pies,and certain juices,etc. They don’t give you a book on what not to eat. You can’t even have air freshener in the car.

You may have to learn to change you own oil and enjoy washing your own car again, because try to take you car to an oil change or car wash and expect them to blow into your device (let alone asking them to learn how to do it). It’s not from embarrassment, trust me, I got used to blowing in it in view of other people after a while. It’s just most places like valet parking, car washes, quick oil changes, and such are just off limits because the places don’t want to deal with it.

I had an I.I.D. requirement and installed it on our shared car. Intoxalock was on the list of authorized I.I.D. providers on the California DMV website. They had a brand new technician and ours was the first device he has ever installed for them. He took over 4 hours to install it and said he didn’t know what he was doing- unquote.

During the installation the horn was blaring and he was cussing while trying to put it in the car- a fairly complex (I’m told by mechanics) newer Cadillac. The car has a delay before it shuts off the battery– so the lights turn off after you have walked away from the car or the radio can play with no key in the car, for e.g. Well, I guess the machine still runs during this time — he didn’t tell us this… couldn’t show us how to breathe into it.. we had no orientation for this thing…

We had episodes of RUNNING blocks back to the car to shut off the device because Rolling Retests would trigger– AFTER waiting the requisite two minute countdown… and we got violations for those!

One night we were asleep in the house and the horn went off in the middle of the night 3-4 hours after we had been inside the house because while we were asleep rolling retests presumably had been triggered after we removed key/locked the car… so eventually the horn was triggered after the machine requested a Rolling Retest again and again… Came out in our pajamas along with other neighbors thinking the car was being stolen and totally baffled. Another violation!

We told Intoxalock and they blamed us “must be partial key forward… (no key in car though..hmmm…)” So, we ended up having to tow the car to the installer’s for a new device $$$$ and guess what’s next? The tow truck driver put the cable on the car wrong and bent our tie bar making it undrivable!

So, we bring it to installer and put in the new device but on a practically undrivable car at installers shop– allignment ruined. Authorized installer advises us to go right to our regular service shop “b/c he can’t fix it there”– doesn’t remove device, doesn’t report the problem to Intoxalock. What he should have done if he was better trained by Intoxalock was to advise us to fix the car BEFORE we put the new device on the car so mechanic wouldn’t accidentally set it off. And this is something no one thinks about on a Friday afternoon dealing with a damaged car and a fresh insurance claim and we are all newbies to this albatross…

So, we drive it as best we can the whole 4 minutes to our regular shop — emergency mode — our only car… manager of our regular shop promises they won’t move the car again at the shop to avoid setting off the machine/needing to blow in it at all — we warned him about device. Tragically, a mechanic does start car while at shop being serviced. Horn goes off and he panics and shuts off battery — doesn’t tell us till we pick it up 3 days later. New device needed AGAIN — we explain on phone what happened — mechanic’s custody, inadvertent. 155 Errors logged. Countless Rolling Retests missed.

Intoxalock takes our order for new device and our $$$ but guess what? They promptly report us to DMV for non-compliance because of the log errors — DMV immediately suspends license for ANOTHER YEAR because Intoxalock says we tampered/bypassed new device.

• Would You Pay Extra To Allow Your Vehicle To Collect Evidence Against You? You Probably Already Have.
• The Ignition Interlock Hoax
• Relearning The Same Lesson, Over And Over And…
• City Of Scottsdale, Arizona Lies To Drivers To Get Their Money
• How To Prepare Your Vehicle For Summer Driving

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Holiday shopping — and holiday traffic checkpoints — are sure signs it’s Christmas. Randomly stopping motorists to look for drunk drivers has been common practice in many states for years now, but enforcement efforts tend to step up around the Christmas/New Year’s holidays.

What should you do if you happen to roll up on one of these checkpoints?

1) Be sober.

The legal threshold defining Driving Under the Influence (DUI) can be as little as .06 BAC (Blood Alcohol Content), a level that can be reached after having consumed just two cocktails at the office Christmas party. This is well below the typical .08 BAC threshold defining Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), but in many states you can be arrested for DUI at the lower .06 threshold — and the potential punishment upon conviction for DUI is often nearly identical to the punishment imposed for DWI.

Either way, the consequences that attend a DUI or DWI conviction are not worth the risk of driving with any significant amount of booze in your system. If you plan to drive, the best policy is to avoid drinking any alcohol before you do.

2) Be polite.

Many people understandably chafe at having to submit to what amounts to a random (and probable cause-less) roadside interrogation and interruption of their travel. They’re right to be annoyed, but it’s common sense not to show it. Don’t raise your voice or become argumentative. These days, people have been Tazed merely for being “uncooperative.” Try to smile and behave normally.

The object is to get it over with and drive on without further problems.

3) Be prepared.

You should always carry your driver’s license with you and have the vehicle’s registration and insurance card (both current) in the car someplace. These roadside checkpoints are not just for catching drunk drivers; they’re also a dragnet for any possible source of “revenue” for the local/state government that can be raised via a ticket for other charges you may be open to — such as failing to have a valid registration or an out-of-date state inspection sticker. Same goes for stuff like burned out headlights, cracked windshields and so on. Anything that could be cause for a ticket you should deal with before you fall into the Venus Flytrap of a holiday checkpoint. Otherwise it’s a good bet your Christmas present will be a piece of “payin’ paper.”

Related: If you have a concealed weapons permit, it’s smart to advise the cop you have one as soon as possible, especially if you are carrying a handgun (loaded or not) with you. Do so in a calm voice and while keeping both hands in plain view. If the cop asks whether you are armed, tell him yes or no. If he asks where the weapon is, tell him it is on your hip (or wherever) but do not reach for it and if he asks to see it, tell him you prefer that he remove it from your person in that case.

We live in jumpy times and it’s unwise to put yourself in the position of reaching for a loaded handgun — permit or no permit and no matter how innocent your intentions. Tell the cop you’d like to exit the vehicle and have him take the weapon off your person if he wishes to inspect it. Never allow your hands to go anywhere near your gun.

4) Be aware of your rights.

While the law says you have to stop at the checkpoint and submit to being questioned, you don’t have to answer any question the cop asks, especially if it’s a leading question designed to get you to make a potentially incriminating statement. The laws requires you identify yourself, provide registration and proof of insurance — and nothing more. You are not required to tell the cop where you’re headed — or why you’re “out so late.” If you have been drinking, even if it’s just a single glass of wine, you are not required to incriminate yourself by telling him how much, or when, or what (although if you haven’t touched a drop that night, it’s common sense to tell him “no” when he asks whether you’ve been drinking, even though you’re not legally required to answer that question, either).

As a practical/legal matter, if the cop begins to question you seriously, any good lawyer would advise you to politely decline to answer and to advise the cop that if you are to be arrested or detained further that you will only answer questions after having spoken with an attorney. Never forget: Cops are not your friend. They are looking for people to ticket and arrest and will do so whenever possible and will use any statement you make against you as evidence later on.

Related: Never give consent to search your vehicle, either. If they ask, tell them not unless they have a warrant. It’s not just the principle of the thing. Innocent people have been ensnared after having given consent to have their vehicles searched — not knowing that (for example) a previous owner smoked pot in the car and there are still some seeds buried in the carpet, which were subsequently sniffed out by a narcotics dog and as a result, found themselves charged with dope possession and their vehicle seized under asset forfeiture laws.

It’s not paranoid to insist on your rights. It’s prudent.

Image Credit

• 5 Things You Need To Know About Roadblocks
• Use This Card To Stand Up For Your Rights At Roadblocks
• 6 Dumb Traffic Laws That Should Be Repealed
• A Blueprint For Reasonable Drunk Driving Laws
• 5 Federal Court Cases That Weakened The 4th Amendment

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Next time you get pulled over by a cop – or stopped at random in a “sobriety checkpoint” — you might want to remember the following laugh line: It’s called the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which reads, in part, that “No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

Ho ho ho!

It’s a laugh line, because, like, so many of the other amendments to the Bill of Rights, pleading the Fifth — that is, declining to assist the authorities in your own prosecution — is a sick joke.

Or like them, is about to become one.

Because cops may soon have the legal authority to forcibly extract blood from you in order to use that blood as evidence against you in DWI cases — which are criminal proceedings.

Refuse to take a Breathalyzer (for whatever reason) or perform the trained monkey act by the side of the road (perhaps because you’re not coordinated even if completely sober and probably a lot less so under pressure and in the glow of a policeman’s flashlight) and you could find yourself thrown down across the hood of a squad car while some cop jams your body with needles in order to get the blood that will then be used as evidence against you at your trail.

Oh, but they will be Trained!

Well, sort of, kinda. A “compressed” version of the same program taken by blood techs — phlebotomists, in medical jargon — will be the curriculum vitae of these state-sanctioned thugs.

Feel better now?

It’s all part of a new federal program — yes, another one — the stated purpose of which will be to determine how effective a “tool” such tactics would be in the ongoing (and endless) crusade against drunk driving. If it is deemed “effective” (do you doubt it will be?) then it will become as commonly practiced across this formerly free land as all the other outrages against civility and basic legal due process we have already assented to.

After all, if you’re not driving drunk, what have you got to be worried about? Those nice cops would never use force against an innocent person! They will be trained! The lab people don’t make mistakes, not even every now and then.

And, of course — drunk driving is a bad thing!

It makes me shiver with dread to see just how close to the abyss we really are. The Masses — or a great part of them — have become sickeningly compliant authority worshippers who submit to anything demanded of them by the state. And who often bristle with righteous indignation when the occasional semi-sentient citizen dares to raise an objection.

No one sees — or would give a damn about it, if they did — the point. Which is that empowering cops to physically hold you down and draw blood from your body against your will — to be used as evidence against you in a criminal proceeding — is to rape the Fifth Amendment and thus, another basic and ancient tenet of the late great tradition we used to call the rule of law.

All in a good cause?

Only if you’re a fool — or the government, which knows what the real payoff here is.

“Getting dangerous drunks off the road” is no more the issue than the random stop and frisks we’re now routinely subjected to when traveling (and even when not) or the indefinite detentions of anyone the government wishes — with or without waterboardings — are about “fighting terror.”

The issue is teaching the people to Obey and Submit. To condition them to accept the idea that anything the government does, at any time and for whatever reason (or no reason at all) is acceptable — including the use of physical force against people even suspected of having committed some offense.

And if you’re not guilty of “drunk driving?”

Sorry about that, John Q. Be sure to hold that bandage against your elbow for at least the next 10 minutes to staunch the flow of blood.

Have a nice day.

As for due process: The Masses do not grasp the concept; they are too busy watching football — or keeping track of John and Kate plus Eight.

It’s what really matters these days.

• California Supreme Court: Breathalyzer Results Can Be Challenged
• Motorists Forced To Let Officers Draw Blood Samples At DUI Stops
• It’s That Time Of Year Again…
• Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?
• Taser Nation

Under the law, a suspected drunk driver can submit to either a blood test, which measures the amount of alcohol in the blood, or a breath test. Alcohol levels in a breath sample are converted mathematically to derive a blood-alcohol percentage. In California, a person is legally drunk when his or her blood-alcohol level is 0.08% or higher.

The standard formula for converting breath results to blood-alcohol levels is not accurate for everyone, however, and can vary depending on an individual’s medical condition, gender, temperature, the atmospheric pressure and the precision of the measuring device, the court said.

“The question is whether a defendant who has a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more measured by breath is entitled to rebut that presumption that he was under the influence” in certain cases, Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote. The court’s answer was yes.

As the article explains, one of the reasons for the ruling was the potential for Breathalyzer readings that overstate the amount of alcohol in a person’s blood:

Even though experts say the standard ratio used to derive a blood-alcohol concentration from breath generally approximates or even underestimates the amount of alcohol the driver consumed, they also agree that Breathalyzer results may sometimes overestimate the amount of alcohol in the blood.

Thursday’s ruling permits defendants in some cases to challenge those results based on mathematical ratios.

“Evidence casting doubt on the accuracy of the breath-to-blood conversion ratio is just as relevant as other evidence rebutting the presumption of intoxication from a breath test result, such as evidence that the defendant had a high tolerance for alcohol or performed well in field sobriety testing,” Corrigan wrote.

Jamie L. Popper, the appellate defense lawyer in the case, had this to say:

“The situation currently is that juries are led to believe that when a person blows into the breath test, the blood-alcohol measure that breath test gives is a fact, when all a breath test is is a measure.”

For more on this topic, you can read our previous article on Breathalzyers:
It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers

And you can read the full Los Angeles Times article here.

• Breath-Alcohol Analysis: How Reliable Is It?
• It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers
• A Blueprint For Reasonable Drunk Driving Laws
• Motorists Forced To Let Officers Draw Blood Samples At DUI Stops
• Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?

By James Baxter, NMA President

MADD and its bloated stepmother, NHTSA, have been pushing for mandated ignition interlock devices (IIDs), preferably in all vehicles, but they know from experience these things have to be done in an incremental fashion, or there could be severe public backlash and resistance. One can currently assume that the breathalyzer industry has been actively writing checks to “enhance public safety” through the legislated mandated use of these devices.

The first stage of the incremental process is to target “bad people,” that would be the two million people who receive DUIs, annually. The objective is to force the courts to require the installation in all cars driven by persons convicted of DUI. Obviously, this would be a bonanza for the companies that make and market IIDs. The country’s number one “early adopter,” California, jumped on this bandwagon in the late 1980’s. Subsequently, the CA state legislature had the foresight to insert a provision in the law that required an evaluation of the IID mandate. Here are some of those findings:

Although ordered by the courts to install IIDs, many DUI defendants did not do so, ostensibly because they could not afford to do so.

When comparing the DUI convicted drivers who actually drove vehicles with IIDs to DUI drivers who did not use IIDs, those using IIDs had significantly more crashes. (84 percent more)

First offenders with high BACs, .20 or higher, who were ordered to use IIDs had just as many subsequent DUIs and crashes as those first offenders who were not ordered to install IIDs.

However, the first offenders who actually had IIDs installed had far more crashes than those who did not.

If this measure is being considered for safety purposes, as is claimed by the proponents, why is the legislature considering a mandate that will substantially increase vehicle crashes?

The financial and collateral penalties, experienced by the average person convicted of DUI, ultimately constitute many thousands of dollars and lost educational and vocational opportunities. It hardly seems fair or rational to institute yet another penalty that does little more than benefit the Ignition Interlock Device industry, and body shops, while placing more burdens on hospital emergency rooms. That is, if the intent is to improve highway safety.

• Traffic Tickets Are Big Business
• Due Process For Traffic Ticket Defendants Threatened
• Due Process Is A Right, Right?
• Compulsary Insurance Won’t Work
• Tyranny Of The Minority: Why Bad Traffic Laws Get Passed

By James Baxter, NMA President

MADD’s current excuse for existing is to make DUI violations a felony, the most serious of criminal convictions. A felon, along with going to prison, loses the right to vote, the right to possess firearms, any professional licenses, scholarships, and many employment opportunities. Given that two or three drinks and a typically inaccurate BAC test will yield a DUI conviction, any normal, responsible person who drinks moderately has a good chance of becoming a felon, if MADD has its perverted way.

The standard incremental approach is to first attach the felon status to persons with multiple DUI convictions and then whittle the number of convictions down to two or even one where the felon status will be assigned. The elephant in the room that no one is mentioning is that once a person has a DUI conviction on their record it’s like having a big sign on the back of their car that says “stop me, I’m a good candidate for a DUI.” A second or third DUI conviction is much easier to acquire than is the first.

Combine .08 percent BAC laws with inherently inaccurate Breathalyzers and politicized enforcement and normal responsible individuals who drink in moderation will achieve the status of “drunk driver felon,” without ever reaching the point of meaningful impairment, or causing and accident. The prohibition movement is alive and well and residing in Texas.

• Vengeance, Bad Data Make For Terrible DUI/DWI Policy
• It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers
• Motorists Forced To Let Officers Draw Blood Samples At DUI Stops
• Breath-Alcohol Analysis: How Reliable Is It?
• A Blueprint For Reasonable Drunk Driving Laws

By James Baxter, NMA President

This editorial by James Baxter is a response to a five part series on drunk driving in Wisconsin that appeared in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in October.

The Journel-Sentinel series on “excessive drinking,” primarily related to drunk driving, was motivated by “studies” that identified Wisconsin as the epicenter of drunken behavior and alcohol inspired havoc.

The authors created the illusion of neutrality while pounding home the message that beer, wine, and spirits, and their purveyors, were the leading cause of mayhem on the state’s highways. That the so-called studies have virtually no merit and evolve from the worst of all sources, self-reported behavior, didn’t cause any hesitation in parroting the ludicrous conclusions.

The premise, that Wisconsin has a huge highway safety problem, ranking it the worse in the nation, has one major flaw. It’s not true.  Real numbers, real facts, show that Wisconsin has traffic accident fatality rates that are lower than the national average and lower than many states that boast tougher DUI laws.

Wisconsin may not rank high in MADD’s book, but where the rubber hits the road the state has a solid record of highway safety improvement. (In 2006 Wisconsin’s fatality rate was 15 percent below the national average.)

MADD has developed a successful multi-million dollar business model that exploits the human desire for revenge, distorts data for propaganda purposes, and promotes intimidation to coerce uncooperative judges and other public officials.

MADD is supported in this process by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, which favors the use of hyperbole and misleading terminology to justify its actions and programs. (E.G. In 1995 NHTSA told Congress that repealing the national 55 MPH speed limit would cause 6400 additional fatalities. The 55 MPH limit was repealed, but the number of fatalities did not increase and the fatality rate has declined, continually, since that time.)

A good example of the collaboration between MADD and NHTSA is the creation of the deliberately deceptive phrase “alcohol related fatalities.” This includes any fatal accident where one of the people involved had a measurable amount of alcohol in their system. It doesn’t mean that person caused the accident, or that the alcohol was a factor in causing the accident. It just means one of the participants had evidence of alcohol in their system.

This is hardly remarkable when 60 to 70 percent of the adult population (perhaps higher in Wisconsin) consumes beer, wine, and or spirits and that alcohol can remain in their systems for several hours after consuming these beverages.

NHTSA issues a press release that says “Nationally, 13,000 lives were lost in alcohol related crashes.” Soon thereafter MADD picks up the drumbeat and proclaims far and wide that “drunk drivers killed 13,000 people.” MADD then predictably produces a family that has suffered a loss in a DUI incident and implies that they are representative of the typical “drunk driver” victim. The Journal-Sentinel series followed the same playbook.

Beyond the estimate that among all the people involved in fatal accidents, 13,000 had alcohol in their systems, none of this is remotely true.

In the vast majority of cases the only “victim” is the driver himself. A significant percentage of single vehicle, single person fatalities attributed to DUI are in fact suicides, not accidents. In other cases, the at-fault driver was not the person with measurable alcohol present and in yet others, alcohol was not a causative factor.

MADD and the political class persist in stigmatizing the sale and consumption of beer, wine and spirits, in general as well as connected to driving. To the extent that this process is profitable (e.g. donations, sin taxes, fines, fees, surcharges, etc.), it may be rational, albeit unethical.

However, when they move to promoting road blocks for the purpose of intimidation and harassment of the general population, or classifying someone as a felon because they had three drinks and drove a car, or mandating ignition interlock devices, proven to cause more accidents than they prevent, their actions become irrational and corrosive to our welfare and values.

Yes, the social and cultural customs of Wisconsin include the consumption of beer, wine, and spirits and the frequenting of taverns, restaurants, social and sporting events where these beverages are served. As even the Journal-Sentinel article gave passing mention, this is largely done in moderation.

And, as official highway statistics show, Wisconsin’s highways are safer than the national average for all states. This is not to say that more cannot be done to reduce impaired driving, of all kinds. But, revenge inspired penalties, intrusive enforcement, and counter-productive mandates are not the direction we should be taking.

• MADD Pushes To Make DUI Violations A Felony
• Drinking Improves Highway Safety (Apparently)
• What Everyone Should Know About The Drunk Driving Problem
• California Supreme Court: Breathalyzer Results Can Be Challenged
• Traffic Safety Hysteria: How The Media Misleads You With Statistics

The NMA supports drinking and driving regulations based on reasonable standards that differentiate between responsible, reasonable behavior and reckless, dangerous behavior.

The NMA does not support “zero tolerance” concepts, nor does it endorse unconstitutional enforcement and judicial procedures that violate motorists’ rights.

Basic Tenets

1. We believe that penalties for DUI/DWI should be related to the degree of risk involved, and that these penalties be equated with penalties for equal-risk violations of other traffic safety laws.
2. We support those legislative and enforcement initiatives that are effective in achieving stated goals of deterrence and removal of impaired drivers. We do not support initiatives based on revenge, political expedience, or emotional hyperbole.
3. We believe that all Americans should enjoy the same Constitutional rights and privileges. Legislative or enforcement initiatives denying these rights and privileges to motorists violate this uniform application of Constitutional standards.
4. We believe in basing laws and penalties on actual evidence of impairment whenever possible. Blood alcohol content should only be used as prima facie evidence of impairment, and there should be flexibility in laws that base penalties on blood alcohol content.

Specific Positions

1. We oppose drunk-driving roadblocks on the grounds that they violate protection from warrantless search and seizure, and fail to meet probable cause standards. They have not been shown to be effective at deterring impaired driving.
2. DWI penalties based on blood alcohol counts should be graduated to reflect the potential severity of impairment. The more severe penalties should be phased in at a BAC of .15 where impairment begins to directly correlate with accident involvement. Lower penalties should be adopted for less severe DWI violations.
3. We support increased penalties for repeat offenders, but maintain that rehabilitation be the primary goal in all but the most severe cases.
4. Any mandated BAC test must be based on clear reasonable suspicion of impairment, not an unrelated traffic violation.
5. Breathalyzer tests should be used for screening purposes only. They should have no standing as actual evidence of Blood Alcohol Content. However, we support that the driver always have the right to a blood test and be notified of that right should he wish to dispute the results of the breath test.
6. We are concerned with deterring impaired driving, not with regulating how a driver might become impaired. A driver is equally responsible regardless of where the drinking takes place be it at home, in a vehicle, or at a commercial establishment.
7. A “technically” impaired driver should not automatically be more heavily penalized if they are involved in an accident. The penalties should be based on the severity of the accident and the extent to which the impaired driver was at fault.
8. We oppose so-called “Administrative License Suspensions” since they are not an effective deterrent and violate the right to due process.
9. We support the detainment of any driver arrested on an impaired driving charge until sufficient time has passed to allow the individual to safely drive, or for other transportation arrangements to be made.
10. We support the right to a jury trial for all accused traffic violators, particularly defendants accused of severe offenses for which long license suspension or jail time could be imposed.
11. We oppose measures that revoke or withhold a driver’s license that do not directly relate to driving. As related to drinking laws, we are opposed to license suspension for non-driving related violations.
12. We do not support age-based BAC standards (e.g., “zero tolerance”) for persons under 21 years of age.
13. We do not support a blood alcohol content standard of .08% for non-rebuttable conviction of DWI.

Periodically, a member will write and express concern over the NMA’s support of “drunk drivers.” This is usually motivated by our opposition to some particular anti-DWI initiative.

The NMA does not support, encourage, or condone drunk driving.

We do support constructive and effective solutions to the drunk driving problem that are fair, equitable, and respective of fundamental rights.

For more information on DUI/DWI issue, visit the DUI/DWI section of our website.

Image Credit

• California Supreme Court: Breathalyzer Results Can Be Challenged
• What Everyone Should Know About The Drunk Driving Problem
• Legislator Prosecuted Under New DUI Law That He Helped Pass
• Motorists Forced To Let Officers Draw Blood Samples At DUI Stops
• Breath-Alcohol Analysis: How Reliable Is It?

If you’re not a convicted drunk driver, should you still be required to have an in-car breathalyzer fitted (at your expense, ‘natch) to your next new vehicle?

Apparently, some automakers — including GM and Toyota — think so. They and a few others are working together under the auspices of something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, which is a $10 million federal “research program” that is trying to develop just such technology for mass introduction a few years from now.

At the moment, the only people who have to deal with (and pay for) in-car Breathalyzers are convicted drunks; the devices are basically ignition locks that prevent the vehicle’s engine from being started until the would-be driver blows into the tube and the system determines he’s not liquored up.

But by 2012 or so, in-car breath sniffers could be standard equipment in every new vehicle sold, force-fed to you by the tag team of Washington, Detroit and, of course, the ever-busy Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

No conviction necessary.

Advocates say the technology under development would be “less intrusive.” Instead of making the driver blow into a little tube like they make you do at those roadside “sobriety checkpoints,” a system of passive alcohol sensors would be fitted to the car that could take a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) reading via a person’s skin — as when your hand touches the shifter or steering wheel. This “quiet” approach is supposed to make us feel better about being pre-convicted and treated like known and duly processed irresponsible drunks every single time we get behind the wheel of a car.

It doesn’t work for me.

I dislike drunk drivers as much as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (is anyone actually for drunk driving)? But I certainly do object to policies and regulations that impose cost and hassle and arguably, petit tyranny, on people who have done absolutely nothing to warrant it.

This isn’t about nannyism so much as it is about upending a few basic bedrock Western ideas about criminal justice, rights and responsibilities. Chief among these being that each of us gets treated as a specific individual.

If we do something wrong, we get specifically held accountable for it;  the guy next door who had nothing to do with it isn’t dragged along for the ride. But that’s just what is happening here — indeed, has already happened — from those so-called “sobriety checkpoints” (which mostly “check”  perfectly sober drivers) to the growing kudzu of “primary enforcement” seat belts laws that pester (and ticket) people for not wearing a seat belt, an action that may not be especially smart on an individual level but which has very little to do with the safety or well-being of others.

What’s even worse than these growing harassments, however, is how few object to them on principle.

Perhaps it’s because of the continuous dumbing-down of the populace, which knows all about Lindsay Lohan’s latest bender and who’s the latest finalist on American Idol but no longer understands that the ends don’t justify the means — and that down that road lies much worse than henpecky tickets and having to pay a few more bucks for your next new car as a result of some government mandate.

People used to get that; today, most don’t seem to. It’s the only way to explain the tsunami-like effectiveness of the word, “safety” — which doesn’t have to be specifically defined, quantified, subjected to cost-benefit analysis or throttled back by the once-superior claim of the individual’s “personal bubble of authority” — where he or she formerly reigned supreme, free of the suffocating and endless edicts of others who claim their evaluation of a perceived risk trumps your personal right to choose.

Just say “safety” (and for added emphasis, include “our children”) and no objection can be sustained.

This latest bit of ugliness burbling up from the stinkpot of government-corporate do-gooderism is merely a symptom of the underlying canker that is our ignorance — and acquiescence.

Earlier generations of Americans would have said, “Hold on a minute. I haven’t been convicted of driving drunk; hell, I’ve never even been suspected of it. Why in the world should I be required to buy an alcohol sniffer to check me out before I drive?” They would have insisted on tough punishment for the specific dimwit who got behind the wheel of a car impaired by booze. But they would have insisted, with equal toughness, that everyone else be left the hell alone to go about their business in peace.

Today, however, the siren song of saaaaaaaaafety is like a secular version of the prayer call in Muslim countries. When people hear it, they automatically fall down on their knees en masse and begin to worship.

God may be great — but “safety” is rapidly gaining ground on him.

Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com

Image Credit

• California Supreme Court: Breathalyzer Results Can Be Challenged
• Vengeance, Bad Data Make For Terrible DUI/DWI Policy
• A Blueprint For Reasonable Drunk Driving Laws
• It’s Just A Decimal Point: The Dirty Secret Behind Breathalyzers
• Breath-Alcohol Analysis: How Reliable Is It?